1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Wu4E8-0006a6-W3
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:23:25 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.217.170; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-lb0-f170.google.com;
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com ([209.85.217.170])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Wu4E7-0002wL-RC
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:23:24 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id w7so3296725lbi.29
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.205.106 with SMTP id lf10mr18791155lac.21.1402338197230;
Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.235.72 with HTTP; Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <B1320E37-B63A-418A-9742-E2E967E71B14@ricmoo.com>
References: <B1320E37-B63A-418A-9742-E2E967E71B14@ricmoo.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:23:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgSyK=DSwmhUSRxsii-iEQaNx0cV74z0WKGzxXF5imzL-A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gmaxwell[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1Wu4E7-0002wL-RC
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BIP38 Encrypted Address Discussion
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:23:25 -0000
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Richard Moore <me@ricmoo.com> wrote:
> Hey all again,
>
> I am implementing BIP38 wallets right now, and had another idea I would l=
ike to put out there for discussion.
>
> Right now the scrypt pbkdf is (16384, 8, 8) for (N, r, p), but I was wond=
ering if it would make sense to include an extra byte in the address which =
would encode the parameters used? For now, they are fine, as it takes over =
3 minutes to to hash once in my pure-Python implementation in CPython (3 se=
conds in pypy). But with all the latest scrypt mining ASICS hitting the mar=
ket, and the difficulty rising of the scrypt alt coins, it may become more =
profitable in the future to try hacking wallets to gobble up their funds. C=
urrently all the hardware is tuned for (1024, 1, 1) and with adaptive-N, it=
only targets upgrading the N value, so having p =3Dr =3D 8 certainly means=
that hardware won=E2=80=99t affect BIP 38=E2=80=A6 But who knows in the fu=
ture if they start making Adaptive-N-r-p ASICS.
>
> It also provides a way to vastly secure more important master keys=E2=80=
=A6 Maybe for a key that is cold storage of millions of dollars that won=E2=
=80=99t be touched for multiple years, I don=E2=80=99t mind waiting an hour=
on commodity hardware to decrypt it.
See the not yet finished proposal at
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D258678.0
It's generally a lot more sound and well thought out than BIP38.
Though right now I believe it's being revised to support secret
sharing.
|
